Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair when it comes to historical buildings we normally love them because of how old they are and what they've been through rather than the religion associated with them. Think of the pyramids or new grange. It's not like either of those buildings are associated with active religions.
I don't like the church but I wouldn't want Notre dame, or Christchurch or anything like them to burn down. (Although I will say there were a few churches that were built in the 70's-80's there were abominations and wouldn't be missed).

There is little built in that era that would be missed with some exceptions ( like the Sydney Opera house).

At least modern late 20C architecture, which has its flaws, has produced some interesting buildings.

And yet a building stands on its own merits. You don't have to like absolute monarchy to wish no harm on Versailles.

Cienciano

Sofia Damaged Lodging wrote: »

I guess we shouldn't worry if the Pyramids, the Acropolis, and the Colosseum are all gone tomorrow, either.

Nobody should care about any of our built heritage, according to you.

I'm sure you'd be fine with demolishing the GPO, Dublin Castle, and Christchurch Cathedral while we're at it.

The GPO? It's just a post office, get rid of it and put something useful there like a Dunnes and a couple of starbucks. :pac:

Anteayer

Anteayer wrote: »

All of these buildings represent a lot more than the name above the door. They're huge achievements in terms of art, culture, architecture, engineering and sheer human ingenuity.

That building represents the state-of-the-art in terms of human technology of its time.

It has been everything from one of the most high and powerful seats of the Catholic Church at the peak of an absolute and theocratic monarchy, where it hosted coronations and all sorts demonstrations of the pomp and power of that regime.

It's been at the heart of an empire and saw an idealistic Republic lose its way with the coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

It has also been humbled by being through the revolution, during which time it was actually dismantled and turned into a Temple of Reason for a while. It's even been left to rot and even used as a food storage warehouse.

It's been through 20th century wars.

Notre Dame Cathedral has evolved into a far more human place. It's a seat of a modern Catholic Church and it coexists, very comfortably with all sorts of other views in a secular republic and it is a massive draw to people who want to appreciate it for what it is - a religious, cultural, architectural and engineering icon that is also a symbol of an ancient city that has existed for millennia through good and bad times both economically and philosophically.

It's stood for most of a millennia and will probably still be standing in another thousand years and will probably have witnessed multiple incarnations of Paris, of France, of Europe and of the church too.

Wonderful post, and a very eloquent defence of our right to mourn its damage. Well done.

Eircom_Sucks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you feel about Eircom? You could request a username change now that you're not shackled to the past.

Again doesn’t bother me

A name don’t define me

Corby Trouser Press

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I'm really struggling to see your point in this post. Would you mind clearing it up?

Nope.

Your reading comprehension issues aren't my problem.

iamwhoiam

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

Again doesn’t bother me

A name don’t define me

I posted this yesterday but I think it apt now again


I feel sad for people who cannot see the wonder and beauty of Notre Dame
They are so busy trying to be edgy and seek attention that the beauty passes them by . Thats sad really

Ave Sodalis

Corby Trouser Press wrote:

Your reading comprehension issues aren't my problem.

Ah come on. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because things get picked up wrong. No need for a sh*tty post in response.

Corby Trouser Press

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Ah come on. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because things get picked up wrong. No need for a sh*tty post in response.

I thought it fairly self explanatory.

Scant acknowledgement of it's religious significance from Ireland or UK.

It has actually contrasted quite drastically from the US reaction.

Even CNN, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton putting the religious element front and centre in their acknowledgements.

Grayson

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There is little built in that era that would be missed with some exceptions ( like the Sydney Opera house).

At least modern late 20C architecture, which has its flaws, has produced some interesting buildings.

And yet a building stands on its own merits. You don't have to like absolute monarchy to wish no harm on Versailles.

I like the way you limited it to modern late 20C Let's not mention hawkins house and busarus.

I like religious buildings. I've been to churches, mosques and temples all around the world. Being an secular atheist doesn't limit the ability to love history, architecture and archaeology.

Corby Trouser Press

Fastidious wrote: »

Hahahahahahaahaha
Times they are changing, glory be to god.
This just goes to demonstrate the materialism that plagues the Catholic Church.. it begs the question why these cathedrals were built in the first place cause I've no doubt that this isn't what Jesus wouldve wanted.

C'est seulement un bâtiment!

Blaming the English for the decline in religion is just blatant racism. It's laughable

Not "blaming" anyone... just stating a fact.

We are culturally subsumed by UK media.

It was built for the Glory of God, to paraphrase yourself, not as a monument to man's ingenuity.

rossie1977

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

I thought it fairly self explanatory.

Scant acknowledgement of it's religious significance from Ireland or UK.

It has actually contrasted quite drastically from the US reaction.

Even CNN, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton putting the religious element front and centre in their acknowledgements.

Well it is a church and Pelosi is Catholic but something like Notre Dame transcends religion just like Taj Mahal has transcended Islam

Ave Sodalis

Corby Trouser Press wrote:

Scant acknowledgement of it's religious significance from Ireland or UK.

It has actually contrasted quite drastically from the US reaction.

Yes I understood your meaning, but so? America is still a very religious country. Ireland is secular. As already discussed on this thread, a building such as Notre Dame is more than just a church.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

I like the way you limited it to modern late 20C Let's not mention hawkins house and busarus.

I like religious buildings. I've been to churches, mosques and temples all around the world. Being an secular atheist doesn't limit the ability to love history, architecture and archaeology.

Busarus is alright. In fact the problem is in the 70's which is when Hawkin's house was built.

Snow Garden

Deleted User wrote: »

You're a 5th year student doing the Leaving in 2020. I most definitely think your opinion here is worth literal shlt.

Come back to these posts when you're 30 and you'll cringe so hard, you'll permanently damage your face.

Woah there horsey! I am not too concerned about your particular beef with Fastidious. I do take exception at the inference that young people cannot have worthwhile opinions. I have worked with 5th year students that have better insights than the majority of people over 40.

(19 people thanked it, I am assuming they are foolish sheep rather than ageist)

Corby Trouser Press

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Yes I understood your meaning, but so? America is still a very religious country. Ireland is secular. As already discussed on this thread, a building such as Notre Dame is more than just a church.

Yes it is much more then a Church, a place of massive cultural and historical significance.

But it is still/(will be again!) a functioning Church.

Seems to pain many of the strictly secular mindset to acknowledge that... including our Head of State and Head of Government.

RobertKK

It is a shame that Notre Dame Cathedral restoration works had a shortfall in money as not enough donated and the French government refused to chip into help - given the building generates a lot of tax money from visitors to the city who come to see the Cathedral.
It took a fire to do massive damage for the money to come rolling in.
It is like the saying 'you don't know what you got till its gone'.

First of all it is a religious building, then it is cultural, heritage and historical.
It was beautiful to hear the people singing hymns as their hearts wept in sorrow to see their church on fire. I found that particularly moving.

Snow Garden

Snow Garden wrote: »

Woah there horsey! I am not too concerned about your particular beef with Fastidious. I do take exception at the inference that young people cannot have worthwhile opinions. I have worked with 5th year students that have better insights than the majority of people over 40.

And I teach 13-year-old Asian kids who've been to Notre Dame and appreciate its history. I have 15-year-olds interested in Latin. I have 14-year-olds talking to me about Brexit.

So I guess I was harsh. Not all 5th years are like that guy, whose history I checked simply because I thought he was a troll.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

Yes it is much more then a Church, a place of massive cultural and historical significance.

But it is still/(will be again!) a functioning Church.

Seems to pain many of the strictly secular mindset to acknowledge that... including our Head of State and Head of Government.

Theres two of ye in it, the ultras of the atheist movement who despise the cathedral because it is Catholic, and the ultra catholics who think we can't mourn a building unless we are Catholics. Tiny groups to be fair but vocal.

I'd mourn the Taj Mahal if it burnt to the ground, and I mourned the destruction of the Buddhist statues. No man is an island. No culture is an island.

Strumms

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

Nope

They all irrelevant to me , life for future not the past

If we cannot appreciate the past then there is no future...

Ave Sodalis

Corby Trouser Press wrote:

Seems to pain many of the strictly secular mindset to acknowledge that... including our Head of State and Head of Government.

I don't think it pains them at all, they just value the historical and architecture aspect more than the religious one as there are many places to worship. Others value the religious aspect of it more than the historical one, and that's okay too. I don't think there's any more to it than that.

Strumms

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

Not "blaming" anyone... just stating a fact.

We are culturally subsumed by UK media.

It was built for the Glory of God, to paraphrase yourself, not as a monument to man's ingenuity.

Regardless of the intent of its being there, for the glory of god or the glory of mascarpone cheese... most people see it as a feat of beautiful architecture and by proxy a feat of mans ingenuity. That’s a fact.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Busarus is alright. In fact the problem is in the 70's which is when Hawkin's house was built.

Busaras is an eyesore!

Corby Trouser Press

Strumms wrote: »

Regardless of the intent of its being there, for the glory of god or the glory of mascarpone cheese... most people see it as a feat of beautiful architecture and by proxy a feat of mans ingenuity. That’s a fact.

It's fine to see it that way.

But let's not whitewash history and the reason that it exists.

Snow Garden

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I'd mourn the Taj Mahal if it burnt to the ground

Taj Mahal is in big trouble already.

https://www.businessinsider.com/taj-mahal-under-threat-of-demolition-due-to-neglect-and-pollution-2018-7

To be honest the area around the Taj Mahal is an absolutely kip. So much pollution and rubbish.

ToBeFrank123

They are saying 20 years to fix it. What a pity. And it will be a building site until then, we little or no access to it.

jasper100

RobertKK wrote: »

It was beautiful to hear the people singing hymns as their hearts wept in sorrow to see their church on fire. I found that particularly moving.

Seriously. All these singers are probably just jumping on the bandwagon. I bet most of them would pass a beggar a thousand times outside that church and never give them a penny.

Hypocrisy on a global scale.

Gimme A Pound

People saying "good riddance" etc are edgelord pains in the hole of course but I do share the bewilderment at the continued mourning at this stage - and all the "too soons" to jokes (some of which are absolute belters). I was saddened of course to hear of such an iconic, historic and beautiful landmark being ablaze. That's always terrible, but at this stage, look nobody died and they will rebuild.

Actually the last time I was in Paris, we couldn't get to see it because it was closed for renovations. Restoration will always be needed.

Gimme A Pound

jasper100 wrote: »

Seriously. All these singers are probably just jumping on the bandwagon. I bet most of them would pass a beggar a thousand times outside that church and never give them a penny.

Hypocrisy on a global scale.

Ah look you don't know any of that.

iamwhoiam

jasper100 wrote: »

Seriously. All these singers are probably just jumping on the bandwagon. I bet most of them would pass a beggar a thousand times outside that church and never give them a penny.

Hypocrisy on a global scale.

You have absolutely no idea about the people singing and their lives so your conjecture is pointless

gozunda

Snow Garden wrote: »

Taj Mahal is in big trouble already.

https://www.businessinsider.com/taj-mahal-under-threat-of-demolition-due-to-neglect-and-pollution-2018-7

To be honest the area around the Taj Mahal is an absolutely kip. So much pollution and rubbish.

Funnily enough the area outside Notre Dame is often overrun by beggars, selfie takers, hawkers and lots of big hairy rats who especially like to come out around sunset.

Tbh that and the multiple large parties of tourists being vomited liberally from buses arriving nearby and following umbrella holding guides can make the whole place a bit less than delightful.

That said I wonder how much of the local wildlife suffered due to the fire including the pigeons, bats, rats and the bees that had been placed on the roof? I presume they either departed or got roasted